Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider her request to change the green belt map which affects her property. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s 2023 representations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her request to correct an error in one of its planning maps which has affected her property since 2003. Despite telling the Council in 2023 it could amend the map outside the local plan development process, she says it refused to consider doing so.
2. As a result, she says she will have to wait even longer for the Council to correct the error which will continue to affect her planning applications. She wants the Council to amend the map and correct its mistake.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated how the Council considered and responded to Mrs X’s representations in early 2023.
9. I have not considered how the Council considered any earlier representations by Mrs X or historic issues about the green belt boundary. These events took place more than 12 months before Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2023, so are late. We can only consider late complaints if we decide there are good reasons. In this case, I am satisfied that Mrs X could have complained to the Ombudsman earlier above earlier events and there are no good reasons to consider them now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her; and
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided.
11. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Local development plans and the green belt

12. All planning authorities must have a local development plan. The development plan is at the heart of the planning system with a requirement set in law that planning decisions must be taken in line with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
13. There is a statutory process for making changes to local development plans, which usually involved a public consultation and review by the Planning Inspectorate.
14. Some areas of land are designated as ‘green belt’ land. Green belt land is subject to enhanced planning controls, the purpose of which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land open.
15. Government guidance sets out exceptions to development in the green belt, which include:
• Buildings for agriculture and forestry;
• Facilities for sport and recreation;
• Alterations to or replacements of existing buildings;
• Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously used sites (brownfield sites).

Background

16. Mrs X owns a property in what is now the Council’s area.
17. In 1989, the former local council for Mrs X’s area proposed changes to the boundary of the green belt affecting Mrs X’s home. These changes were confirmed in later revisions of the local development plan in 1993 and 1997. The changed boundary cut through Mrs X’s home and garden, where before Mrs X’s entire property was outside the green belt.
18. The change to the green belt boundary has affected several planning applications Mrs X has made in the years since. Mrs X says this has prevented her from developing her land as she would like to.

2023 representations

19. In early 2023, Mrs X sent the Council substantial representations about the green belt boundary affecting her property. Her representations set out:
• the background of the green belt boundary since the mid-1800s;
• the key changes made in 1989;
• why Mrs X believed those changes to have been made incorrectly; and
• why Mrs X believed the Council could, and should, change the green belt boundary immediately, outside the local development plan process.
20. Mrs X sent her representations to a senior elected member of the Council, asking them to make the changes by a council resolution, due to delays in the local plan development process.

My findings

21. It is not our role to decide where the green belt boundary near Mrs X’s property should be, or whether the Council should amend it in the way Mrs X suggests. That is the Council’s decision to make. Our role is to assess whether the Council properly considered Mrs X’s 2023 request. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.
22. The Council said it considered Mrs X’s arguments for changing the green belt map affecting her property outside the local development plan process in both 2021 and 2022. In its responses at those times, the Council explained its position to Mrs X. This was, essentially, that while the Council agreed the green belt boundary in the current local plan was likely not drawn in the right place, it did not agree with Mrs X about where the boundary should be. Therefore, its view was that how the map was drawn was not a simple ‘administrative error’ which it would be appropriate to correct outside the usual local development plan process.
23. After Mrs X sent her latest representations to an elected member of the Council in March 2023, the evidence shows the member sought advice from Council officers about her request. The officers explained that Mrs X’s request was essentially the same as other representations she had made in 2021 and 2022. They did not consider that Mrs X had provided any new information which affected the Council’s views about the matter and, therefore, there was no reason to change the decisions it had previously made.
24. The elected member Mrs X contacted replied to her in late March 2023 and in May 2023, after seeking further advice from Council officers.
25. As explained above, it is not our role to review whether the Council was correct in its decision not to act on Mrs X’s representations. Our role is to consider whether the Council considered Mrs X’s representations properly.
26. In my view, the evidence shows the Council did properly consider Mrs X’s 2023 representations. Elected members sought advice from the appropriate Council officers, who identified and advised on what they considered to be the core issues and the Council made and explained its decision in line with that advice.
27. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s view and considers that it should change the green belt boundary which affects her property. However, the Council has taken a different view. Since there was no fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s 2023 representations, I cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s 2023 representations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman